tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post8563100815805095237..comments2017-08-18T00:25:03.910-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Solar: It's about to be a whole new world.Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-33422343359424017742013-10-09T06:04:01.634-04:002013-10-09T06:04:01.634-04:00That last comment was a willful misunderstanding. ...That last comment was a willful misunderstanding. Of course, the sentence means the implementation of renewable gets dearer with a rising worth on carbon, via their backup emissions. not possible to browse or quote in context if you&#39;ll be able to churn out a vacuous gotcha instead, I guess.Solar Street Lightshttp://www.solarilluminations.com/acatalog/solar_street_lights___parking_lot_lighting.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-29671176185838051912013-09-16T20:52:28.908-04:002013-09-16T20:52:28.908-04:00Many people should be aware of what solar energy c...Many people should be aware of what solar energy can give us. I believe that this can really help us in many ways and I am positive that it can go a long way.alisonhttp://onegreenhome.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9060362866834505552013-08-27T06:59:00.709-04:002013-08-27T06:59:00.709-04:00There is really a need of cheaper systems as they ...There is really a need of cheaper systems as they will cause a huge boom among essentially all industries in every country. Energy powers everything. So far, with nuclear technology stalled, we don&#39;t have anything cheaper than coal and gas for producing electricity. With cheap solar thing will change. The Great Stagnation - which many suspect is really just an energy technology stagnation - would suddenly be a lot less scary. Great post. Keep sharing.<br /><a href="http://www.sterling-energy.com/" rel="nofollow">Sterling Energy</a><br />Krista Hileshttp://www.sterling-energy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-74653286066667378992013-03-07T03:17:45.193-05:002013-03-07T03:17:45.193-05:00Noah,
I think that you have missed the main drive...Noah,<br /><br />I think that you have missed the main driver in the story of the decrease in the cost of photovoltaics. It has very little to do with any of the new technology - plain old crystalline silicon PV has something above 90% market share, and growing. This is an interesting economic story (why don&#39;t you write something about it? I&#39;d like to hear your explanation of Chinese factory investment, there is an interesting story of regulatory capture on the grid side too) but it isn&#39;t the one you are telling. Cheaper panels, and lower installation costs are mostly a story of scale, not fancy new technology.<br /><br />When it comes to solar competing with fossil fuels, since PV can be installed on the customer side of the meter, solar is competing with the retail cost of electricity. In some places with good sun and expensive power, like here Australia, &quot;socket parity&quot; has already been reached. <br /><br />As an aside, transparent solar cells are stupid.<br /><br />Regards,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-54156837254666136022013-02-11T11:01:40.567-05:002013-02-11T11:01:40.567-05:00I applaud you, Noah, for taking on a real-world pr...I applaud you, Noah, for taking on a real-world problem, and particularly for being one of the few econbloggers to worry seriously about energy. I think you&#39;re probably way overoptimistic about pretty much everything, including solar, but you&#39;re looking in the right places, and you&#39;re never boring. Cheers!EChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14853888915441711738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-8998218465826115802013-02-02T01:48:28.599-05:002013-02-02T01:48:28.599-05:00I am searching for my assignment and found your bl...I am searching for my assignment and found your blog post ( Solar: It&#39;s about to be a whole new world. ) on google search your post is informative an give me lots knowledge for my current <a href="http://www.academic-dissertation.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">assignment</a> thanks for sharing such a wonderful information keep updating share the knowledge whole world including me.Maria Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234341174211987104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-61058912982569762992013-02-01T08:59:31.558-05:002013-02-01T08:59:31.558-05:00First Solar announced that it would layoff almost ...First Solar announced that it would layoff almost a third of its workforce early last year, as it was planning on shutting down operations in Germany completely, and on letting its operations in Malaysia sit idle. The European market for green energy had deteriorated for too much to sustain business operations, according to the company.<br />Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08987795178452921198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-28151525791869487362013-01-30T16:48:56.648-05:002013-01-30T16:48:56.648-05:00the alternative to storage technology would be roo...the alternative to storage technology would be room-temperature superconductors. if we can crack that nut, then solar energy intermittency could be diversified away via a global grid.bena gyereknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35963965737923941362013-01-30T16:15:00.031-05:002013-01-30T16:15:00.031-05:00my concern: does solar actually reduce global warm...my concern: does solar actually reduce global warming? think about the loss in reflectiveness of the earth&#39;s surface. this may not be an issue with current technology, but what if one day we cover the sahara in super-efficient panels? that could mean we end up trapping a lot of solar energy on the earth&#39;s surface that currently gets reflected back out into space. most of that trapped energy ultimately gets converted into thermal energy, one way or another.bena gyereknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-28433844546323035402013-01-30T12:48:28.757-05:002013-01-30T12:48:28.757-05:00The mention of a thermal solar that could be 8 tim...The mention of a thermal solar that could be 8 times as efficient as the best solar panel is an issue - that would be more than 100% efficient! Anyways, the second law of thermodynamics limits thermal solar efficiency unless temperatures are in the thousands of degrees.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-4537949351302209662013-01-30T12:23:09.901-05:002013-01-30T12:23:09.901-05:00Unfortunately government has been required over an...Unfortunately government has been required over and over to create civilization. Thank-god Libertarians had no power when the first six civilizaitons began forming or we would likely all still be in caves.<br /><br />Business existed long before government (although then in a sense IT becomes the government) but civlization did not. The activities that created the first civilizations required actions larger than any single busienss could ever take. It wasn&#39;t always pretty and &quot;civilized&quot; but I&#39;m glad it happened.DuaneBidouxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72489455908219481522013-01-30T00:29:04.111-05:002013-01-30T00:29:04.111-05:00I live in the Texas Hill Country and have a roof w...I live in the Texas Hill Country and have a roof with an excellent southern exposure on the top of a hill. However I ran the numbers and because of no state subsidy its a 20 year payout. Hail problems they say have been addressed but I have not checked out the cost of insurance. (Where I live the record says that a shingle roof gets trashed every 8 to 10 years because its on a hill top and attracts winds and hail). But if you could get the payout for the system down to 10-12 years I would likely go for it, but being 62 I don&#39;t see 20 years of living where I live and its not clear if you could get a higher price with the system. Lylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-12051215087337063622013-01-30T00:21:48.802-05:002013-01-30T00:21:48.802-05:00I would add that in general where oil is used to g...I would add that in general where oil is used to generate electricity then solar is competitive, such as the USVI and other Islands in the Caribbean. In particular on the smaller islands more than the larger ones. The issue of managing the gird is of course part of what smart grids are about, but also the folks running the grid have to think differently about running it. Just like with wind, for example on wind after the blackouts a few years ago the Texas grid got more precise on their wind forecasting, and on what backup is needed. When an operator joins the grid they have to pay for what is called ancillary services which includes the backup. (Texas has a deregulated grid for energy). But solar will take some rethinking of how the grid is managed, and definitely with distributed solar will take smart meters to report back the way the load is shifting, so the grid operator can take action. Full sky cameras could be set up as well to detect clouds every square mile or so in cities. Lylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-74672461344567321562013-01-29T23:40:46.200-05:002013-01-29T23:40:46.200-05:00Also in regards to success of solar energy in my e...Also in regards to success of solar energy in my experience there is both optimism and doubt for the right obvious reasons, from people of different political views. There are some problems but there is also room for it becomign cheapper and quite more widespread. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-40491321579501323242013-01-29T23:34:56.619-05:002013-01-29T23:34:56.619-05:00The possible future success of solar energy is not...The possible future success of solar energy is not a bedrock belief of conservatives of the world or even American ones specifically. It is a belief that some people might hold or they might find subsidies distasteful but there is nothing in particular about solar energy that if succesful would cause much opposition from conservatives. This is not a dogma issue. <br /><br />Seems like another excuse to bash the other side in a tribalist fashion, Noah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-33620221891656829692013-01-29T19:54:20.012-05:002013-01-29T19:54:20.012-05:00Well, lets try to look at the numbers. The http:/...Well, lets try to look at the numbers. The http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm document suggests a levelized cost 152.7 for Solar PV, at a capacity factor of 25%. Unfortunately, Germany sees CFs of 12-13%, NE USA of 13-15% and even sunny Arizona of 19%. Solar capacity factors are set by the latitude and weather, so if we want to be generous, and include a most of the continental US, a more honest value would probably be 16%. Raising the Solar PV price to ~238.<br /><br />But it gets worse. Storage is a completely unsolved problem (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8237). But let us assume that, MIRACLE, we manage to get enough storage to smooth out second and minute scale fluctuations! Solar has a low CF, but produces almost %100 of its full capacity during a few short sunny hours around noon near the spring solstice. Let us assume we don&#39;t want to spill any of that precious electricity (which would lower solar&#39;s CF a lot, raising its price even further). Then for every MW of Solar, we need 1/CF MW of &quot;backup&quot; (as 1/CF&gt;&gt;1, calling it &quot;backup&quot; is misleading). Lets make this backup Coal (levelized cost 97.7 of which only 27.5 goes away if the plant isn&#39;t being used). So to go from (1/CF-1) MW of Coal to (1/CF-1) MW of Coal +1 MW of solar PV, we actually need 1/CF MW of Coal (only 1/CF-1 MW generated) and 1 MW of solar. Final price of the 1 MW of power? 152.7*25/CF+97.7-27.5 ~ 308. Or over triple the cost of coal.<br /><br />And of course, to *get* that price, we needed to assume a Miracle (short time-scale smoothing) and we need the total amount of solar to be negligible: if solar produces more than CF% of the total power, electricity WILL be spilled, and the price will go up. We have also neglected the additional wear-and-tear (and fuel costs) associated with rapid, massive ramping up and down of the coal plants which forces them into inefficient operation modes.<br /><br />So, you can spend an absurdly huge amount of money to generate a harshly limited amount of your electricity through solar, without ever shuttering a single coal plant. Win! For the coal industry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-2301438614427434202013-01-29T18:30:43.107-05:002013-01-29T18:30:43.107-05:00Even if solar power were used only in certain area...Even if solar power were used only in certain areas -- like the larger desert Southwest, from Southern California to Central Texas -- it could have a pretty beneficial effect nationally: less use of oil, lower carbon dioxide emissions, lower risks of nuclear accidents, and so on. The intermittancy problem can to some extent be dealt with through the fact that its causes are largely predictable -- when know when sunset occurs, we can see clouds on the radar, and so on. Where I live in Santa Fe, we have ~290 full sunshine days annually, and ~350 with at least partial sunshine. If you have a clear day and thousands of solar panels spread over a hundred square miles, you probably don&#39;t have to keep that gas plant on instant stand-by. Many of the major metro areas in the desert southwest have similar potential, and could feed areas as far away as Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, and San Francisco, on the periphery of the desert. Construction and maintenance costs would still be there, but much of the land in the desert is government-owned, and therefore (subsidized) acquisition costs could be as low as zero. <br /><br />I think there are a lot of problems with solar, but there are a lot of problems with the other forms of power generation as well.<br /><br />I do think thorium reactors might be a better solution to the problem.JChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14292824882441961455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-91513646316549213642013-01-29T17:13:31.220-05:002013-01-29T17:13:31.220-05:00No mention of the decades of subsidies that the oi...No mention of the decades of subsidies that the oil and gas industry has received from the government? If you are going to call yourself a libertarian that does apply across all aspects of government, not just the ones you like.booshfan1https://www.blogger.com/profile/09448316427060412400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-63533999293551963522013-01-29T14:19:29.618-05:002013-01-29T14:19:29.618-05:00Libertarian here – the prospect of cheap (or cheap...Libertarian here – the prospect of cheap (or cheaper) solar is highly encouraging. Nothing says freedom like the ability to live off the grid, and if solar can develop to the point that homes can be powered mostly by solar alone, the economic effects will be tremendous. Not to mention, one of our key vulnerabilities is the safety of our power grid – imagine if we could live modern lives without reliance on it.<br /><br />I have similar reservations as Colin as to the subsidy issue. It’s not that government can’t, in theory, provide needed assistance to development of new technology. It’s just that our current system funnels money to allied interests and campaign contributors, who often aren’t the best investments. Many of the most notorious subsidized failed green companies just happened to be generous campaign donors. When you can get your funding by donating and not innovating, there is no incentive to innovate. <br /><br />Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14745394165450282238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-50735781757161474552013-01-29T13:07:52.457-05:002013-01-29T13:07:52.457-05:00Though I too am hopeful about solar power, energy ...Though I too am hopeful about solar power, energy is a small part of the economy so i do not expect it to be all that transforming. I would guess that your projections are too optimistic. I would guess that it will take about 20 years for solar to be economical here in sunny central Florida. Jim Oliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00004178958481335795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-36536286521377458432013-01-29T09:00:18.860-05:002013-01-29T09:00:18.860-05:00&quot;Despite the feat, it is worth noting that so...&quot;Despite the feat, it is worth noting that solar power still only accounts for around four percent of Germany&#39;s annual electricity generation&quot;<br /><br />Yeah.Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08987795178452921198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24733047676808074432013-01-29T05:12:42.851-05:002013-01-29T05:12:42.851-05:00Btw, I got into this trap myself above. The refusa...Btw, I got into this trap myself above. The refusal to work with an inherent price on carbon also concerns the so called nuclear renaissance. There is a lot of talk now that it did not materialize, so that&#39;s that, let&#39; move on. But ever since the first conceptual study from MIT surfaced some ten years ago, the necessary precondition for a rise of nuclear was a price on carbon. And we really do not have a price on carbon, nowhere (the price of emission certificates in Europe has completely imploded). So, virtually no nuclear is what one would expect under current conditions. Nobody said that it would somehow rise magically.<br /><br />Instead, there is implementation of renewables in Europe on a massive scale. Put that together with the de facto defunct cap and the refusal to deal with shale gas, and what you get is a renaissance of - - - coal, that has recently seen a revival so remarkable as to make the success of solar look like a minor event, and that&#39;s a really bad thing. So I am not quite sure that this turned out well.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-39332385244381628032013-01-29T04:19:45.302-05:002013-01-29T04:19:45.302-05:00Well, that cost is not constant is not exactly a s...Well, that cost is not constant is not exactly a surprise. I don&#39;t know why this is talked about here in terms of single numbers that are compared to one another. More problematic is that the article works in the realms of the mother of all market failures: if you want to talk about a functioning market you have to assume a price on carbon. And there the whole &quot;intermittency&quot; thing gets really, really important. But it is completely ignored instead.<br /><br />Grist is a perfect example: just a week or so ago they argued against shale gas as a transitory lower carbon energy source because very ambitious mitigation targets cannot be reached that way. Why the ambitious target? Because no other than James Hansen suggested so. Of course, James Hansen knows that in the short run renewables don&#39;t do the job: he calls for massive deployment of nuclear. Look up what grist have to say about nuclear. Hansen is a dummy that serves them as long as they can base their case against shale on him. When it is pointed out that renewables themselves are fossil dependent (that&#39;s the problem with intermittency) and therefore not yet suitable for a very low emission economy there is a subtle shift: the new aim is a sustainable energy sector in a much broader sense. That is, the urgent case for emission reduction is substituted for the long run aim of a completely sustainable economy.<br /><br />Put a price on carbon and renewables get rather less important than other low-carbon alternatives (yes, nuclear) in the short run (at least that is what simulations indicate). I.e. optimising the sector with a sharp constraint on emissions and a fast transition to a &quot;green&quot; economy do not combine as a first-best option. The detailed reasons are complicated, but intermittency (and thus backup emissions) are a reason. To ignore intermittency as a conservative talking point allows environmentalists to ignore this. Thus, I was quite serious when I asked Noah if he is really sure that he is not regurgitating a talking point here himself, because this is exactly what it is.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-46015405121597032352013-01-28T22:41:23.660-05:002013-01-28T22:41:23.660-05:00How did I end up on this crappy blog again?
I&#39...<i>How did I end up on this crappy blog again?</i><br /><br />I&#39;m guessing someone put a gun to your head and forced you to click the link...Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-16560728427608985372013-01-28T19:26:37.164-05:002013-01-28T19:26:37.164-05:00How did I end up on this crappy blog again? All it...How did I end up on this crappy blog again? All it does is pull at your political heartstrings rather than address issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com